Someone at the league office is going to be getting coal in his stocking for Christmas.

A woman who has admitted to running a Manhattan prostitution ring says she plans to disclose next week on Dr. Phil’s show the names of big-name clients. The first, according to the New York Post, will be a high-level NFL executive.

“There is going to be a giant name dropped — actually, a couple of them,” Anna Gristina told the Post.

Gristina was asked if that’s “giant” with a capital “G,” which drew a laugh that has been described by the Post as “mischievous.”

“Everyone’s going to have to watch Dr. Phil,” Gristina said. “I will tell you that one of the names is high-level [NFL] management. Then there’s an older [football] player who’s still very well known. Tune in to Dr. Phil!”

Gristina, who pleaded guilty earlier this year to one count of promoting prostitution, currently is on probation. She received permission from a judge on Wednesday to travel to L.A. for the taping of the Dr. Phil show.

The taping happens next week, and the show will be aired roughly a week later. It’s unlikely that the name of the executive will remain secret for long after the name is disclosed to the studio audience.

Couldn't she get sued for libel if she has no actual proof about what she says/isn't willing to give any evidence? I don't know much about the defamation laws in the US (but it seems like theres a higher proportion of major cases there), but in Canada theres a defense for responsible communication on matters of public interest, but I don't know if this would qualify since it only applies if "the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story."

I kind of doubt this is urgent, serious and of public importance so I hope this attention ***** gets sued if she has no evidence, but again, I'm not entirely sure how defamation laws work in the US.

Well, he is a former Giant who was caught with a prostitute. I'm not sure that constitutes a name being "dropped," as we all heard about it already. Makes perfect sense for it to be Giants, though. But really, before this explodes - lest's not pretend that this situation is unique to whatever team she names, this is just the madame who's squawking because she got busted. It's all about the $$$.

Couldn't she get sued for libel if she has no actual proof about what she says/isn't willing to give any evidence? I don't know much about the defamation laws in the US (but it seems like theres a higher proportion of major cases there), but in Canada theres a defense for responsible communication on matters of public interest, but I don't know if this would qualify since it only applies if "the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story."

I kind of doubt this is urgent, serious and of public importance so I hope this attention ***** gets sued if she has no evidence, but again, I'm not entirely sure how defamation laws work in the US.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about defamation laws, but I'm guessing this whole story goes away when the NFL threatens to sue her into oblivion.

Couldn't she get sued for libel if she has no actual proof about what she says/isn't willing to give any evidence? I don't know much about the defamation laws in the US (but it seems like theres a higher proportion of major cases there), but in Canada theres a defense for responsible communication on matters of public interest, but I don't know if this would qualify since it only applies if "the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story."

I kind of doubt this is urgent, serious and of public importance so I hope this attention ***** gets sued if she has no evidence, but again, I'm not entirely sure how defamation laws work in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WCH

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about defamation laws, but I'm guessing this whole story goes away when the NFL threatens to sue her into oblivion.

Defamation laws are different when public figures are involved. If someone is constantly in the public eye, standards are adjusted, so it would be increasingly difficult and tedious to pursue a legal matter as far as slander/libel/defamation goes. That's why politicians can have smear campaigns to mislead voters on the character of their opposing party member. She can pretty much say "so and so comes here any given number of times" and if so and so wanted to sue, he'd have to prove without a reasonable doubt that he was NOT there and that his character was defamed and how much it was defamed and the value on that, and that their actions were done with malice.